The Factors Influencing the Change in Cairene Domestic Architecture After the Ottoman Conquest', EJOS, IV (2001) (= M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Publication Data: Sedky, Ahmed, 'The Factors Influencing the Change in Cairene Domestic Architecture After the Ottoman Conquest', EJOS, IV (2001) (= M. Kiel, N. Landman & H. Theunissen (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, Utrecht - The Netherlands, August 23-28, 1999), No. 38, 1-23. ISSN 0928-6802 © Copyright 2001 Ahmed Sedky. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author. The Factors Influencing the Change in Cairene Domestic Architecture After the Ottoman Conquest Ahmed Sedky* Introduction The first half of the sixteenth century was a very critical period for Cairene architecture. During this period the Ottomans conquered Egypt; after almost six centuries of autonomy it was turned into a province under the Ottoman crown. The question is: did Egypt give up its domestic architectural heritage easily? And if not, did it witness any changes? If so, what are the factors influencing such changes? The purpose of this paper is to discuss the architectural atmosphere in Cairo during this period from a very general perspective. In order to identify the factors responsible for any changes in Cairene domestic architecture, we require an awareness of the socio-economic situation, the urban conditions and the architectural trends of that period. Socio-economic Situation The social life in Egypt did not change much after the Ottoman conquest. The Mamluks and the Ottomans did not have a dissimilar culture; at least they spoke the same language.1 The Ottomans were also pious Sunnis, so they respected the 'ulama (theologians) and did not want to affect their role as the people's leaders, or the foundations under their supervision, the awqaf (religious endowments). The role of the awqaf system, however, was eliminated after the Ottoman conquest.2 The Mamluk amirs who wanted to reflect their sovereignty through the domestic and religious structures that they built had adopted it before. However, after the Ottoman conquest there was no place for any major architectural manifestation in * Mr. Ahmed Sedky, ECA., Heriot-Watt University, UK. 1 Staffa, 229-231. 2 Amin, 374. AHMED ALI SEDKY Cairo since it was no longer the seat of the Mamluk Empire but only the capital of an Ottoman province. Many craftsmen were taken to Istanbul, as was the Abbasid Caliph who was captured and imprisoned in Istanbul only to be released after bequeathing his title (the Caliph, the leader of believers) to the Ottoman Sultan.3 Cairo, therefore, was no longer the major metropolis of the Sunni world. Consequently, it had a different level of architectural patronage. A major social factor during the Ottoman period was gender related, as the Ottomans were more conservative compared to the Mamluks. It is, therefore, suggested that women were allowed more freedom and were relatively more exposed during the Mamluk Period. Van Ghistele, describing Mamluk life, points out that "one sees women coming and going and paying visits to their folk."4 However, the Ottomans had practiced more segregation as can be seen in the domestic architecture of their homeland, Anatolia. There, domestic architecture provided separate quarters, which were more communal to receive male guests, for men (the selamlik) and other quarters for the family members where females could practice their daily life activities (the haremlik). They stressed the haremlik privacy, covering its openings by projecting wooden grilles known as kafes5 which may be the origin of the Egyptian mashrabiyya (the protruding turned-wood fenestration, bay window), as will be discussed below. Contrasting with the relatively stagnant social conditions, economic life in Egypt witnessed remarkable changes after the Ottoman conquest. This can be illustrated by examining architectural patronage during this period. It can be divided into two groups. The first is the bourgeoisie: rich merchants and eminent religious scientists. This group, in spite of the harsh economic situation during the discussed period, remained in charge of construction in the old districts near the mosques and wikalas (malls surmounted by living units) on al-Azhar and al-Saliba streets, which were close to their workplaces. However, they had lost the inspiration that had existed in the construction of the royal and princely structures of the Mamluk period. Patrons of a different type replaced the great Mamluk patrons now, i.e., the Ottoman walis (viceroys) and their prominent employees. They thought mainly of profitable foundations. They tended more towards building structures that had a commercial function. This explains the flourishing urbanization process in Bulaq where a lot of construction activities occurred. Huge numbers of wikalas in Bulaq (the major port and international trading center, especially for coffee) belong to the Ottoman period e.g., the huge wikalas of Sinan Pasha built in 1538-49 and of Mahmud Pasha built in 1565-1567. This can also explain why the walis remained in Egypt after leaving office; they remained to supervise 3 Staffa, 232. 4 Ghistele, 160. 5 Pinon &Borie, 650. 2 CHANGE IN CAIRENE DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE AFTER THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST their foundations that, theoretically at least, were the Ottoman Sultan's properties.6 This socio-economic situation affected dramatically both the urban fabric and the architectural environment in Cairo. The urban tissue became denser, which was reflected in Cairene architecture. This leads us to assume that the changes in the Cairene urban fabric were the most important criterion responsible for any architectural changes occurring during the discussed period. Urban Conditions It is much safer to examine urban policy during the Mamluk period first to identify any changes occurring after the Ottoman invasion. The Mamluks founded many new quarters bordering Fatimid Cairo, which remained the most important urban centres and suffered from overpopulation and a very dense urban tissue. In contrast, the Mamluks founded many new quarters. The area between al-khalij al-Misri and al- Nasiri with its several large birkas (ponds) was quickly laid with gardens, villas and residential streets. Al-Fustat, al-Qahira and Bulaq were linked together by a network of streets surrounded by buildings. Nonetheless, there were gardens and promenades in the spaces in between.7 The Mamluks created focal points, around which the population would be conglomerated. Then, they would move away from this point to found another center of attraction. As a result, different settlers filled the gaps in between; e.g., the Mamluks urbanized Bulaq by founding al-Khatiri as an urban center following that by building al-Ustadiriyya Mosque, making it a prominent urban center. Consequently, the area between al-Khatiri and al-Ustadiriyya was urbanized.8 This urbanization trend remained until the end of the Mamluk period. The quarters founded by the Mamluks were al-Raydaniyya and al-Azbakiyya. Both had leisure houses and became pleasant places for the amirs. By the time of the Ottoman conquest, al-Raydaniyya, al-Azbakiyya and Birkat al-Fil had the least dense urban fabric and were filled with houses, palaces and gardens. The urban fabric of Suq al-Silah and the areas close to the citadel were slightly denser. They were the quarters in which the amirs lived. Bulaq had a strong commercial character. Al-Qahira had already become a very dense urban area because of its many functions. On the other hand, the expansion of al-Husayniyya, al-Darb al-Ahmar and the Northern Cemetery had subsided.9 The districts close to the citadel remained 6 Hanna 1981, 51. 7 Williams, 36, 40, 44. 8 Hanna 1981, 63. 9 Behrens-Abouseif 1994, 43. 3 AHMED ALI SEDKY the quarter of the ruling class10 because it was close to the horse market and the Maydan al-Rumayla (currently Salah al-Din Square). Prominent figures such as Khayr Bek lived in the Alin Aq Palace at al-Tabana in 1520 after becoming the viceroy of the Ottoman Sultan. The Ottomans did not establish new quarters but they lived in and developed old ones.11 They had to fill in the urban fabric founded by the Mamluks (Figure 11). Imposed courts in rectangular and square forms, as well as other architectural innovations had to be introduced; the façades were folded towards inside. Wherever possible, additions were added to original properties in order to increase the built areas. Projections were also introduced. Adding balconies to in situ buildings to increase the inner space was a tradition known in Anatolia in the fifteenth century, e.g., the Byzantine palace of Tekfur Sarayı.12 This construction process was supervised by the court represented by the mimarbashı who resembled his Mamluk predecessor kabir al- muhandisin or ra'is al-muhandisin.13 Yet the former did not have to be an architect. This system was less restricted than its counterpart in Istanbul, known as "The Organization of Imperial Architecture" which allowed individuals to build but under its own supervision.14 Consequently, many building violations occurred in Ottoman Cairo affecting its street profile and even inner courts (Figures 6 and 7). However, this image is not applicable to all the quarters. It may hold true in the case of Old Cairo and the districts nearby, such as al-Husayniyya and al-Darb al-Ahmar. But it is not fair to apply it to al-Azbakiyya and Birkat al-Fil, where we find large houses with linear layouts receiving their light and illumination from their long elevations overlooking gardens and ponds. The above-discussed socio-economic and urban situations shed light on the eagerness of builders to maximize the built area without expanding outside the existing city. This intensive use of the urban area affected Cairene architecture, which had to be manipulated to fit the needs of the society.